The following is a small selection from some of the
student responses turned in as summaries of the weekly course
content.

On the class itself:

On the first day of class we were asked to complete a seemingly
harmless survey which, to the best of our knowledge, was to be
used as a measuring stick of our own insight into the one topic
which has baffled humans for thousand upon thousands of years.
The survey began with what, at that time, appeared to be the rather
trivial question of "What is wisdom?" Unwittingly, we
went like lambs to the slaughter and offered up our own definitions
of this tricky little word. Each and every one of us possessed
at least some idea of the nature of this ever-elusive entity;
or so we believed. Yet, I am willing to bet my life savings that
these initial responses ran the gamut of personal interpretation.
Some of us may have alluded to the pragmatic shrewdness of "successful"
members of society, while others may have spoken of the "illuminating"
wisdom which is seen in the piety of religious figures, and still
others may have referred to the "liberating" insight
of the world of structured academia. Despite the fact that many
of us travel along through life with these dogmatic assurances
of what wisdom truly is, I find it utterly fascinating that there
is no single consensus as to how to specifically define the entity
of wisdom. Even after ages upon ages of quibbling over this one
concept, we cannot come to any definitive conclusions regarding
its true nature. . . . The fact that we see some essential similarity
in all of these distinct cases indicates to me that there must
be some underlying current of agreement as to what this concept
truly is. Surely there is some structure behind all this confusion.
Surely it must all fit together. In order to get a better grasp
of the concept of wisdom, we started the course by embarking upon
a journey which would allow us to examine the world's various
traditions which have purported to gain a true understanding of
wisdom.

(Mark Edsell)

Upon entering Wisdoms of the World, I was surprised by the nature
of the class. Mostly , I was shocked because for some reason I
was under the impression it was just some out there J-term philosophy
course. Right? Wrong. In just a month's time I was faced some
of the most challenging materials I have ever experienced, massive
amounts of information, and ideas which caused me not only to
rethink my views but to better comprehend why I think the way
I do. During the first week of this course in addition to learning
things I had never known, I received a new level of awareness
of things which I have seemingly always been conscious. For the
first time I considered the hierarchy of wisdom, knowledge and
information. Though I had always distinguished these words from
one another, I had never really considered why, or maybe more
importantly how, they differed. I was first confronted with the
task of defining these terms with the entry survey (which was
my first indicator that perhaps I did not know what I thought
I knew.) I provided partially accurate definition of wisdom, and
then I ran into a bit of trouble communicating the fundamental
differences between the three, especially between knowledge and
information. Then came the question, "Do you claim to be
a wise person?" Now this was a query that required a bit
of tact in answering because it was somewhat like trying answer
someone who would ask "Are you pretty?" or "Are
you smart?" In answering too confidently one runs the risk
of sounding egotistical. In answering with too little confidence,
one might sound like a victim of low self-esteem. Finally came
the task of naming the three wisest people we know and then describing
one of them, which provided a challenge to those of us who had
begun to question our own concepts of wisdom after being asked
to define it. I thought that the entry survey was a very effective
exercise in showing the class that what we think we know and what
really is, are not always the same thing. Philosophy is also another
word of which I became profoundly more aware. I gained a better
sense of this word from the work which I read last, Bertrand Russell's
The Value of Philosophy. It was this article that helped
me to better understand the preceding works which we had read
and discussed. From this article I not only gained a better comprehension
of what philosophy is but why it is important. It was Russell's
conclusion which I found most informative:

Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of
any definite answers to its questions, since no definite answers
can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of
the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our
conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination,
and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against
speculation; but above all because, through the greatness of the
universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also rendered
great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which
constitutes its highest good.

It was also in The Value of Philosophy that I found a very
valid argument against one my personal beliefs. To a certain extent
I have subscribed to the belief that reality exists within our
own consciousness; which is not to say that I believe that reality
exists within the realm of my cognizance but rather within the
consciousness of mankind. It was Russell's contention that this
type of thought robs philosophic contemplation of its value "since
it fetters contemplation to Self." I found this to be a very
logical point because the key to discovery is going beyond what
we already know. Most importantly, Russell's observation helped
me to better understand the notion that admitting our own ignorance
is a step in the direction of wisdom. However, I still choose
to stand firm in aspects of my original belief, which pertain
to spiritual concepts existing only insofar as man lets them,
but that is a subject I will deal further with later. Now would
probably be a good time to get into the body of works we discussed
this week.

(Lauren Ganoe)

On Plato's Allegory of the Cave:

In his Allegory of the Cave, Plato presents us with one
of the most brilliant images of Wisdom that the world has ever
known. He speaks of a group of slaves chained to a rock who are
only capable of seeing the images which are cast upon the wall
in front of them. One of the slaves manages to free himself from
the shackles and is amazed to learn that the images which were
constantly in front of his face, and around which he had constructed
his "reality" are nothing more than shadows cast by
actual objects which lurked out of the field of normal vision.
There are many lessons to be learned from Plato's allegory, all
of which are attempts to point us in the direction of wisdom.
Probably the greatest lesson to be learned is that things simply
are not as they appear. The world which we perceive is not the
world as it truly exists. Any image of reality based on our perceptions
which we may hold to be true is nothing more than a representation
of the reality which resides outside of the realm of the phenomenal.
We often attempt to define "reality" with the parameters
of verbal communication, while we forget that the words are nothing
more than shadows cast upon a wall by the objects which exist
beyond the vision of those facing the wall.

The more and more one studies the world's wisdom traditions,
the more and more one sees how this Platonic theme reoccurs, in
one form or other, in most concepts of wisdom. For instance,
the Chinese tradition of Taoism rejects the idea of language as
being our most useful tool for truly coming to terms with wisdom.
Similar to the Platonic tradition, they felt that the ultimate
understanding of wisdom was a thing which remained outside the
realm of verbal communication, and that any attempt to grasp it
through symbolic representation did nothing more than dimmed the
picture of its complete existence. What I find peculiar is that
in spite of the fact that the Taoists begin the teachings by stating
that the true essence of Tao is something that cannot be given
in language, they still continue to attempt to define it in such
a manner. They fall into the same Confucian trap which they make
a point to avoid. They condemned the Confucians for constructing
their reality around the shadows on the wall, and laud themselves
for having broken their chains which enabled themselves to venture
out of the cave and come face to face with the ultimate reality.
Yet, they elect to return to the cave and rebind themselves to
the shackles of hollow sound and characters, once again constructing
a sense of reality around the shadows.

(Mark Edsell)

On Aristotle:

For Plato, in the "allegory of the cave" from the Republic,
wisdom can be seen as having been gained by ascending from opinion
and "reality as imagined" from the prisoner's viewpoint
staring at the shadows in the cave to knowledge of the Forms.
Of course, you have to believe in the Forms if you want to posit
Them as the highest knowledge attainable.

Assuming the existence of the Forms, the act of contemplating
and having the Forms as one's intentional object is an act in
which one attains sophia. Aristotle was not readily convinced
that thinking about the Forms was sophia, but he was convinced
that the highest wisdom one could attain was of the speculative
and theoretical sort. Though sophia was viewed as the
highest wisdom, the related idea of phronesis was nonetheless
important. Aristotle's logic can be seen as an attempted to give
phronesis to sophia. This is assuming that, via
language, his system of reasoning is able to pin down in reality
what is sagacious and true.

His phronesis is inseparably connected with ethical decisions
because it is concerned with our behavior. One must remember
that the philosophy of Aristotle was concerned with life as lived
within a society. And this fact necessarily entails that one
has practical and ethical concerns. Aristotle believed that there
was a best way to manage these concerns, and that this best way
was manifested in the act of choosing the correct or proper action
in a given situation. It becomes apparent that one must know
what is correct or proper, and for Aristotle what is proper is
acting in accordance with his own doctrine of the mean as proposed
in the Nicomachean Ethics.

(Kevin Kaufmann)

On Hebrew Wisdom Literature:

Just as our conception of wisdom effects our religious beliefs,
religious beliefs effect what we consider wisdom. The community
in which an individual lives and experiences constitutes that
individual's view of the world. The community conditions belief
in a particular reality and conditions some conception of wisdom.
This is evident in the Hebrew wisdom literature of the Bible.
What ultimately constituted wisdom for the Hebrew culture was
faith in YAHWEH or God, although this is broad generalization.
Wisdom, especially of the theological or philosophic sort, ultimately
comes as a gift from God and was to be viewed as an end in itself.
It appears that it is through this type of wisdom that God made
Himself evident to His believers. . . . Hockmah, roughly
translated as practical wisdom, was . . . [p]ropriety in deference
to God [which] was seen as a way to material well-being. Failure
was seen as caused by not acting properly in accordance with God.

Skepticism as to the human, more so Hebrew, limits of wisdom
is evident in Ecclesiastes. In this book of the Bible,
observations are made about the random nature of material well-being
relative to propriety. Pious individuals seemed to go without
reward (Job, for example) while the impious prospered. The author
of Ecclesiastes appears to doubt the relation of propriety
and material well-being. What I understand to be wisest for the
Hebrews is to have faith in God and admit God's actions as humanly
unfathomable. The same sentiment is expressed at the end of the
last chapter of Ecclesiastes:

Chapter 12, verse 11The sayings of the wise are like
goads, and like nails firmly fixed are the collected sayings that
are given by one shepherd. 12 Of anything beyond these,
my child, beware. Of making many books there is no end, and much
study is a weariness of the flesh. 13 The end of the
matter; all has been heard. Fear God, and keep his commandments;
for that is the whole duty of everyone. 14For God will
bring every deed into judgment, including every secret thing,
whether good or evil.

(Kevin Kaufmann)

On the Transcendentalists:

From the opening statements on the first page of
Emerson's "Self-Reliance," "to believe your own
thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private
heart is true for all men-that is genius," it is clearly
observable that the Transcendentalists maintain a position that
focuses on and encourages the individual. It is this type of
attitude that arrives at new and innovative ways of thinking and
exposes new fields of thought. It is only by breaking out of
the traditional modes of thought and behavior that we can make
progress. By progress I do not necessarily mean technological
advancements or smoother roads on which to drive our faster cars.
By progress I am referring to an increase in the quality of life
as opposed to lifestyle. If we live our lives in a manner that
strictly follows conventional customs and norms then we are doomed
to never truly experience life for ourselves for our perception
of the world around us will tailored to conform with the accepted
ideals. Every and all individuals experience the world around
them in a unique and individualized fashion and in order to draw
from that experience all that it is worth it is necessary to be
uninhibited and uninfluenced by external influences. Hence, Thoreau's
time spent at Walden was not an attempt to commune with nature
or live by the most austere means possible. Rather, Walden was
Throreau's attempt to experience and interpret Nature () for himself,
free from any distraction or obstacles that might contaminate
his experience.

(Jason Morgan)

One student chose to communicate his understanding
of the course materials in a more creative and imaginative means
than the usual descriptive essay. What follows is a small selection
taken from the longer narrative:

So now I'm walking through a leafy
wooded place. Ordinarily I would just say that I was walking through
a forest, but it had sort of an artificial feel to it. I'm walking,
looking all around, mostly up into the trees, kind of wondering
why they look so disinterested when I not only step into a huge
mud puddle, but trip over some guy.

Let me tell you about this guy.
First off, he was totally naked, and so thoroughly covered in
mud that it took quite a while to sink in that he really was nude.
Second, and I swear this is true, he never ever not once stopped
smiling. I don't know about you but after like an hour or so of
constant smiling my cheeks hurt like hell, it's a perfect example
of one of those things you never notice until to late. Anyway
the main thing that impressed me, or at least impressed upon me,
the most about him was his eyes. His eyes just looked right into
me like, well I guess like if the disinterested trees of the forest
had eyes I could imagine them looking similar. He gave me a look
that said he had me completely figured out. Needless to say by
this time I didn't have a clue how to react. On top of all the
other stuff that has gone on today now I have this naked oldish
guy eyeing me from the middle of a mud puddle.

I tried as best I could to gather
my bluster. "you're going to catch a cold if you stay in
that puddle," I managed. He thought that was a very funny
thing to say, at least I assume he thought it was a funny thing
to say because he started laughing at me.

"What
does a cold look like,"
he chuckled at me.

"Huh," I said.

"Would
you be so kind as to explain to me what exactly a cold looks like
so that when one comes along I will know to try to grasp it,"
he said.

"You can't see a cold or
any other adjective for that matter," I said.

"Am
I an adjective?" he asked.

"No, you're a naked man
covered in mud." I replied.

"Then
why did you trip over me."
He said.

"I didn't see you."
I said.

"Exactly."
He said.

He seemed very pleased with my
answer. So pleased, I think, that he got up out of his mud puddle
and put a loose robe on, over the mud and all. Then he said, "Time
to wake up, boy."

"What are you talking about,"
I asked.

"You
still don't see me do you,"
he said more than asked, "Do
you know where you are? Do you know how you got here?"

I thought about that one for
at least a couple of hours while we walked through the almost
forest, because the fact of the matter was that I didn't
know where I was. That didn't bother me to much. I get lost often
enough that I more or less expect it. More often than not when
I actually get to where I wanted to go I'm very pleasantly surprised.
What did bother me though was that I couldn't remember anything
after I left the house. What also bothered me, well not really
bothered so much as just took notice of the fact that the mud
man was smiling at me while I was wracking my brain trying to
account for the lost time. Damn it. Time has been messing with
me all day. All right, all right start from the beginning,
I thought.

"I was fretting over how
to begin this paper," I thought out loud, "That damn
frog kept saying either I shouldn't do it at all, or I should
set the beginning of the first page on fire."

"Kama,"
mud man said.

I stopped and looked up at his
crusty smiling face. Kama, I think that's Hindu for pleasure,
one of the things people want.

I was still trying to work through
the original question much less think about why mud man decided
to say pleasure in Hindu, when I said, "Then I found out
my couch was really home to chronologically impaired culture."

"Artha,"
he said.

Now I had to seriously consider
this. Artha ,I think is the Hindu word for success, or value.
Success is also one of the things people can really desire, along
with pleasure. Well sure I guess not doing the paper would
have been pleasing, not to mention how much fun it would be to
set it on fire, but it definitely wouldn't last. Wait a second,
the frog suggested those courses of action, and the frog was nothing
more than the personification of my own 'will to evil'. I always
did think of the frog as more selfish than evil. How pleasing
would it be to satisfy purely selfish desires?

Artha, success, the aborigines
in my couch. I did keep affirming to myself that they were in
my couch. Essentially affirming my ownership of the native
aborigines in my couch, whom by their own admission have always
been there. What is more successful than ownership of an entire
civilization. Hold up. I'm thinking of them as a primitive culture.
That assumes I'm in a position to know the difference between
primitive and non-primitive. Am I successful in that I don't
consider myself a primitive, or that I desire to be a non-primitive,
and what good would it be to succeed. The aborigines in my couch
were every bit as smart as anyone I ever met, well maybe not the
frog.

At that point I started muttering
to myself, "What happened next? I was stunned by the natives'
existence, I wandered out into the hallway where Ishmael told
me of his dream about god."

"Dharma,"
mud man said.

I think I actually slapped my
forehead when he said that one. I know I definitely sat down in
the dirt. Again I was muttering to my self, "Dharma, that's
a tricky one. It could mean a lot of different stuff to different
people. To me, whether its a correct translation or not, it means
something along the lines of ethical good behavior or knowing
right from wrong or something along those lines. It's also one
of the things people can truly desire as well. Ishmael's mystical
dream very clearly said that doing the god's work was good. Ishmael
himself said that he didn't want to lose the knowledge of the
will of the god. He was obviously one of those who desire Dharma.
I know that I don't desire mystical knowledge of right and wrong."

Then after I was all muttered
out I looked up from the dirt I was sitting in to the dirt encrusted
on mud man's still smiling face and said, "Moksha."

"Now,"
mud man said, "finally
you see me."

He helped he to my feet and we
started walking again.

He said, "This
is the forest of the pratyeka buddhas. Every person who manages
to gain self enlightenment has to walk through this woodland.
Every tree in the forest grows on the discarded self's of the
buddhas. Every leaf of every tree is a desire extinguished. Someday
this forest will cover the world."

"Am I awake," I asked.

"impetuous
boy! You have merely learned that you are asleep. It's up to you
to find out if you want to wake up. Now you know where you are
and how you got here,"
he said.

"who are you," I asked.

He said, "I
take care of the forest. I suppose that makes me a gardener. Call
me Sid."

"Where are we going Sid,"
I asked.

Still smiling he replied, "Over
the hill there. I would like to show you the archery range."